[lfs-support] 5.13. Check-0.9.9

Philippe Delavalade philippe.delavalade at orange.fr
Wed Jan 16 09:05:20 PST 2013


Le mercredi 16 janvier à 15:54, Pierre Labastie a écrit :
> Le 16/01/2013 14:31, Philippe Delavalade a écrit :
> > Hi.
> >
> > I'm building svn-10094 ; my host system is debian/testing.
> >
> > I obtain an error while building check-0.9.9 ; here is the output of make
> > command :
> >
> > [...]libtool: compile:  gcc -DHAVE_CONFIG_H -I. -I.. -g -O2 -Wall -ansi -pedantic -Wextra -Wstrict-prototypes -Wmissing-prototypes -Wwrite-strings -Wno-variadic-macros -MT putenv.lo -MD -MP -MF .deps/putenv.Tpo -c putenv.c  -fPIC -DPIC -o .libs/putenv.o
> > putenv.c:5:1: error: expected identifier or '(' before '{' token
> > make[2]: *** [putenv.lo] Error 1
> > make[2]: Leaving directory `/lfs/sources/check-0.9.9/lib'
> > make[1]: *** [all-recursive] Error 1
> > make[1]: Leaving directory `/lfs/sources/check-0.9.9'
> > make: *** [all] Error 2
> Hi,

Thanks for your anwser.

> 
> I have given some explanation of this in
> http://www.mail-archive.com/lfs-dev@linuxfromscratch.org/msg18128.html.
> 
> Basically, in some cases, binutils links to the host library instead of 
> the  /tools
> one. In this case, Debian testing has still eglibc 2.13 while you have 
> glibc-2.17
> in tools, and there has been an incompatible API change in the pthread 
> library.
> This reults in `configure' not finding a bunch of procedures, including 
> putenv.
> The `check' build machinery has a fallback for putenv (the file 
> putenv.c), which
> has a typo in it, giving the error you see...
> 
> You have two ways from here:
> - quick and dirty (but should do OK) : rerun configure with 
> CFLAGS="$CFLAGS -lpthread"
> - more correct, IMHO : rebuild binutils-pass2, adding --with-sysroot to 
> the `configure' switches.
> You do not need to rebuild gcc, tcl, expect or dejagnu. Then build 
> `check' again.

I chose this method and check-0.9.9 has been compiled without any problem ;
I ran make check and all tests passed.

Many thanks.

> 
> >
> > I have to say that, for some stupid reason, while building tcl, I ran twice
> > the command sequence :
> >
> > make install
> > chmod -v u+w /tools/lib/libtcl8.6.so
> > make install-private-headers
> > ln -sv tclsh8.6 /tools/bin/tclsh
> >
> > I don't know if this as effect but I prefer to mention it.
> >
> >
> No effect that I could think of. Haven't you got an error at the last 
> line, because tclsh already existed?

Yes I had an error and that's why I knew, looking at the command history,
that commands where passed twice :-)

Regards

-- 
Ph. Delavalade



More information about the lfs-support mailing list